: ‘Emmanuel Macron is the rightful heir to the spirit of 1968’: A model of self-serving historical revisionism.

Headline: Emmanuel Macron is the rightful heir to the spirit of 1968

Sub-headline: Today’s protesters want to cling on to the past, not seize the future

You needn’t read Mr Stephens essay to get the point of his advocacy/defense of Macron’s putative Neo-Liberal Revolution.  Just look at Pinn’s sloppily executed cartoon and you have plumed the depths of this defense of Macron’s retrograde Neo-Liberal Revolution. The 68’rs were for the future: how the Conservative Party line on ’68 has ‘evolved’ into self-serving dishonesty!  This reader wonders, what the Financial Times editors of ’68 said while those demonstrators were on the march? I was 23 when this event happened, and recall  reading the hysterical pronouncements of the bourgeois press.  Many of the members of what was to become the Nouvelle Droite were demonstrating in ’68:

Those un-deseriving strikers, of today, are for their entrenched, not to speak of unearned entitlements, that now impede Mr. 37%’s Revolution!

Why retrograde? That Neo-Liberalism seeks to supplant the Republican Tradition with the dismal failure of The Free Market Delusion, in sum, a nihilism! We, in both America and Britain, still live in the dismal watershed of that political/economic/moral  collapse. Call Neo-Liberalism what it is Economic Social Darwinism.

Mr. Stephens, as full time propagandist for The Financial Times, demonstrates the  political desperation of both himself, and his publication, by invoking ’68 as somehow being the historical corollary of  Macron ‘s bogus revolution! Macron’s  Jupertarian, read authoritarian, Politics is being challenged by ‘the great unwashed’ Unionists: aux barricades!

Old Socialist

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.